User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 6:32:35 AM EDT
[#1]
 Damn skippy it was put together by "individuals", and dang well informed individuals to boot! They worked very hard and compiled data from many sources to produce the definative answer to most if not all of your AR15/M16 ammunition questions. And you don't want to direct folks there, what the heck is your problem? You should instead be grateful that someone actually took the time and expended the effort to produce such a resource. NOWHERE on the internet (save perhaps the Maryland AR15 Shooters Site, which IIRC is link to the same source) is there any better ammunition information for the AR15 and your suggestion is we should NOT direct folks there, and instead allow numb-nuts like you to give and provide answers for the newbs????? Your a dang  , in my book.Mike PS - folks that want to be spoon fed and expect to have info handed to them on a silver platter expending NO effort whatsoever, don't desrve the knowledge in the first and are certainly too stupid to make proper use of it. Get a life loser, Tat and Troy and Brouhaha along with others busted their asses to get that resource up and all you can suggest is "not to use it", do us all a favor, take a long walk off a short pier!  [rant mode off] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 6:35:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Gee, Mike, how do you really feel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 6:52:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Mr Wilson, that was inspirational!
The Oracle is perhaps the best FAQ in the world on 5.56 ammo that is available publicly. It is well researched. The reason why its often said 'Read the Oracle' is Troy, Brouhaha, and Tatjana and others don't want to be answering the same darn question every other day. It gets really old after the 100th time someone asking about which is better M193 or M855.... However the best benefit is the infor is accurate. You'd be surprised how many uninformed people THINK they know the answer - when in fact all they are doing is repeating a false urban/military legend. As a side bonuse by telling the person to read the Ammo Oracle that person becomes more knowledgeable AND it reduces usage of this site's bandwith and disk resources (which are finite). (is this the time to point out The Knack was basically a 'one hit wonder'?  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 10:39:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Gee Mike are you having a bad day?hat
Without taking further feedback from others that have an opinion on ammo selections or barrels and what not, then the oracle is limiting the information to past experience. Why put a strangle hold on new members or others that wish to add feedback? Having an open mind is never a bad thing. After all many members here are as qualified as the oracle maker or at the very least have knowledge to help. You or I may not have the answer someone is looking. If you think the oracle is the final word then I really think a more open mind may benefit some. I hardly think I am a hat |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 10:47:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Knack,
In every society, there are rules. On the Internet, in Discussion Forums such as this (or on UseNet Newsgroups), there is an etiquette, or standard set of rules, that everyone is expected to follow for the benefit of all. This is commonly called Netiquette in the online world, and there is a good Netiquette guide here: www.ezine.com/netiquette.html From the "Do" list: RTFJ: Read The FAQ, Jack! Look through a news group for a posting called a FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions. Most newsgroups have a FAQ that is posted weekly or that is on a Web page. The people who use the group the most often maintain these to keep people from continuously posting the same questions. If you post a question about something that is in the FAQ, you might get ignored or flamed. No one has any problem with anyone asking an unanswered question, or even being confused about an answer given in the FAQ. I've personally been answering questions here almost daily for over 7 years, so I'm obviously okay with doing so. But to answer the same set of questions every couple of days, or fight the same battles with people who KNOW something that isn't true (because they heard from this guy who's brother once met an actual NAVY SEAL, so it MUST be true), gets very old. The FAQ is designed to answer 99% of these questions in a complete and correct way. The FAQ has been reviewed by some very harsh and exacting critics and was judged by them to be correct (or, in a few cases, some minor corrections were made). If you find an error in the FAQ somewhere, we want to know about it. We want the FAQ to be correct. But it isn't enough to say "what you guys wrote about X is wrong." We need some strong, well-documented evidence of that claim before we can take a serious look at it. If you, or anyone else has such, we'll look, and if need be, we will add or correct the FAQ. Until then, it's probably pretty safe to assume that anything you read in it is correct. We've put hundreds of hours, and in the case of B & T Labs, countless thousands of personal dollars, into collecting data and getting it right. Coming from someone who has put more work into this than nearly anyone, I simply am no longer going to keep answering the same questions over and over from people who are too lazy, too apathetic, or too self-centered to look up the answers that are already there and well-documented. Sorry. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 10:52:21 AM EDT
[#6]
This demands repeating:
..., I simply am no longer going to keep answering the same questions over and over from people who are too lazy, too apathetic, or too self-centered to look up the answers that are already there and well-documented. You go Troy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 10:56:48 AM EDT
[#7]
The people who put together the oracle do revise it & review (as Troy indicated) when someone presents a valid point with supporting documentation. Instead of whining about it - specifically post what you think is wrong or where you're opinion on some subject covered by the FAQ is relavant.
The oracle is periodically reviewed and updated - you'd know that if you've read it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 11:39:21 AM EDT
[#8]
No one gets jumped for asking a question which is not answered in the FAQ. Look back a few pages and you'll see what I mean. Asking about the difference between M193 and M855, or asking about .223 and 5.56 will certainly elicit a few groans if you haven't first read the FAQ. There are absolute truths out there, you know? Those don't need further discussion. You wouldn't argue with the fact that 2+2=4 without first having a open-minded discussion, would you?
That's just it - there are OPINIONS, and there are FACTS backed up by experiment. You can tell me that 68gr Hornady OTM shoots great out of your rifle at a given velocity. No problem. Good feedback. But most of the questions asked by people are of a very basic nature which ARE answered by the FAQ. The information provided will probably not prove anything in the FAQ incorrect, because, as Troy has stated, it's been reviewed by some VERY knowledgeable people. That said, the oracle doesn't have an answer for every questions obviously - but we're not talking about those questions since they're not shot down.
How many members do you think are qualified to comment on the expertise of the oracle? Probably less than you think. You have to have the proper CREDENTIALS. What those credentials are is not necessarily etched in stone, but suffice it to say that what comes out of B&T ammolabs is very reliable and scientific. When you spend lots of time and money to test this stuff, then you are qualified to comment. If you shoot a couple of boxes of ammo at some wet phone books, then your knowledge will not be of any use.
For those issues which the FAQ addresses it IS the final word unless proven otherwise. It's back to the 2+2=4 thing. You'd have to give specific examples of where a fallacy has occured and give scientific proof of that to be taken seriously. Give me an example of a question which was shot down by referring it to the Ammo Oracle, which in your opinion merited discussion about the validity of a point made in the FAQ. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 1:01:25 PM EDT
[#9]
hort"Have a Bushmaster vmatch 20". Only have ever shot Fed ae 55gr and x193. Ae Fed much more accurate--1.5" groups at 100 and under 3" groups at 200. My question is are there any more expensive but under 10.00/20 round rounds that might shrink these groups. I know i should just experiment but just looking for some types you all have had good groups with. Have read all the ammo reviews from Zukov. Thanks alot guys oh and i do not reload." This individual posted he already had read the ammo reviews and was still asked to go to the ammo oracle. Why? It can be asked what twist rate on the barrel and then others with similar set ups give examples for him to try. Instead most read "Go to the Ammo Oracle" and pass by without helping. I would have given my 2 cents if I had the same barrel and two people did try to help him. Just one example in the past few days. Last I knew internet forum sites were open for discussions between all members and not just site staff as long as the site guidelines are followed. Troy- Many of us do appreciate all the hard work and time involved in what you and a few others have compiled. It does really shorten the learning curve but at the same time it cannot possibly answer all questions for everyone. This post is not a slam on the ammo oracle but just a heads up from someone who noticed opinions were being discouraged. Also I feel that you personally do not need to feel responsible for replying to all ammo related questions. That would probably drive anyone nuts. If this post has made some feel like I am throwing darts....that is not my intention at all. Semper Fi, Jerry |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 1:21:21 PM EDT
[#10]
The case you cite is kind of interesting. The guy mentioned he read my ammo review thread. Austrian gave the standard ammo oracle reply. In that case, I agree with you - the ammo oracle should not have been summoned as it didn't really contain the answer he was looking for.
You'll also notice that people did give relevant answers without being derogatory. You made it sound like that there were posts which questioned the content of the ammo oracle's validity or something of a similar nature, so it appears that we had a misunderstanding. Austrian has a lot of expertise, but he might have been a little quick on the trigger on that one. I'm not in charge of the ammo oracle, but I do run the ammo review thread. Believe me - when I see the 1,000th post asking about Wolf ammo in their AR, I get kind of testy. Those are the kind of posts we're talking about. The kind where it's obvious that the person has not bothered to look at the tacked posts. If there's a non-redundant question asked, you WILL get answers. Sure - someone may point to the oracle, but that's not going to happen all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 1:32:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Jerry,
I would also like to point out that many of us are willing to answer questions even if the real brains of the forum are not posting. I don't have years and years under my belt, but like many others I do have some experience and input to offer even if the question is related to the ammo oracle. Troy, Brou and Tatjana can't respond to every question, and if I were them I'd get a little tired of the same question all the time too. Like Zhukov said, if you have a question you can probably get answers. I think this forum as most of AR15.com is, is pretty accepting of newbies. I was one a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 6:48:23 PM EDT
[#12]
I really started pouring effort into the Oracle (which back then was called the AR15.com Ammo FAQ and was laboriously maintained by Troy and Troy alone) when I found that despite all the expertise on this board you couldn't get a simple answer to a simple question. Everyone had an opinion and never did two opinions match. It was surprisingly hard to get a decent "answer" because you never knew who actually knew what they were talking about. Everyone looked equally convincing if you were a newbie. We revised the Ammo Oracle to include common questions and did additional research to try and nail down "the real answer" for questions. Where we couldn't find "the real answer" we often constructed (at great personal cost in some cases) testing of our own to get "the real answer." I keep a running list of new questions that should be on the Oracle. We cleaned that list out recently with an update, but it sits on my desktop and gets new additions every once in a while. Right now that list includes: Why 12" ? How do I go about selecting ammo? Which ammo is lowest flash but still good for self defense? We get a lot of "where can I get more accurate/cheaper ammo" questions. I expect people who ask this get pointed to the Ammo Oracle because it has (scattered around) lots of ammo sources and even (in the latest update) some opinions on the best ammo for various purposes. Of course, since it is easy to do so, some people will get pointed to the Ammo Oracle just because no one wants to type 2000 words to answer "Where is the cheapest place to get Ammo X?" Still, we don't think that the Ammo Oracle has ANY effect when it comes to reducing the various opinions Ammo forum readers here are willing to spout with the slightest provocation. No one ever accused Ammo forum readers of being shy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 6:54:54 PM EDT
[#13]
New question to be added to the top of the Ammo Oracle on next revision:
"Those guys on the Ammunition Forum were really mean and yelled at me to read this FAQ before I ever posted again. One guy suggested my mother was dating some guy named Bulmer. I've never met anyone named Bulmer, what gives?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 7:16:13 PM EDT
[#14]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/5/2004 9:23:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Thus one of the reasons I haven't been around much lately. It does get really old. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2004 12:16:44 PM EDT
[#16]
I thought it's just cause you're lazy.... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 3:24:52 PM EDT
[#17]
What we have here is failure to communitate.TheKnack,you are not going to win this one.I know what you are trying to say and i can sympathize,but as you can tell its falling on depth ears .For now the ammo oracle is the divining answer for all questions ,you just need to accept that .I just wish that people who are intolerant , bored, tired or above it all with a certain question asked , would just say no ,and not respond at all!Funny,i didnt know that every question had to be answered by people who didnt want to?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 3:30:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Huh? So an ear with an extra long canal can't hear? Or does it mean you can't hear if you're in water that's too deep? That can't be right, because you can hear things 4x farther away in water. Oh! I know! You meant DEAF.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
